What SW infantry weapons could bring down a Space Marine?

[Serafina]

How dependent are they upon their power armour? Power armour tends to be treated in sci-fi like it's either dead or alive, but in reality it should be more like any other kind of vehicle; it should be possible to score a "mobility kill" on a power armoured opponent by doing sufficient damage to make its power-assisted locomotion fail. It's not as if hits are going to be either fatal or harmless.

Space Marine powerarmor seems to be quite rugged - it is often field-repaird, and a Space Marine is not immobilized when it is hit on the joints. They can lift very great loads even without it, and it is, after all, evenly distributed over the body.

Still, if you melt the joints together, you have your mobility kill. A Marine could presumably just cut the joint apart, but that would take several minutes.

Marines themself are quite tough, with reinforced bones (their chest is basically armored with a thick plate of bones). But if you can blast trough their armor, you can (and propably will) kill them - it just reduces their losses from proximity hits, shrapnel and weaker shots to breached armor.

[takemeout_totheblack]

10kms away? I hope it has some sort of stabilization, otherwise your just wasting ammo.

I just quote the site when it comes to numbers. As it is with all things it depends on the user. A high powered sniper rifle in the hands of Joe Q Nutsack probably isn't going to be breaking any records, but in the hands of the likes of Rob Furlong it'll ruin someones day from two K away.
(beat)
hurr hurr hurr... that rhymed.

Anyway, I'm sure that there's some thingie in a ST's helmet that helps with that sort of thing, or at the very least some training to help utilize that range potential.

[Darth Wong]

Possibly as a "group fire" type deal. Beaten zone refers to something else, and is specific to machine guns.

Weren't we talking about the E-Web? Or did I get two different tangents confused?

[Connor MacLeod]

Marines fight and train, damn near live in the armour 24/7. They can fight without it, their still heads and shoulders above a normal human without it, even having a sort of integral body armour.

There are weak spots of course; joints and such but they can still be combat effective with an unpowered suit. They just won't be "the equal of ten men."

They don't wear their armour quite THAT often.. when they train or are out in the field usually yes. Briefings and emetings yes. But aboard ship or at prayer or meals they often may just wear other clothing.

Weren't we talking about the E-Web? Or did I get two different tangents confused?

Rifles I thought. E-webs would be such overkill its not even funny.

[Aaron]

Weren't we talking about the E-Web? Or did I get two different tangents confused?

Rifles, I believe. Regardless a beaten zone is only possible with a ballistic weapon, because it typically involves firing over hills and such into dead ground.

What happens is that between two points a round will hit a standing individual in the head and at the last it will impact the foot. Anyone in between the two points will be hit somewhere between the head and foot.

[Eviscerator]

[quote="Connor MacLeod"]

They don't wear their armour quite THAT often.. when they train or are out in the field usually yes. Briefings and emetings yes. But aboard ship or at prayer or meals they often may just wear other clothing.

SM's so far in the novels almost always show up at mealtime and meetings, etc etc in their Armor, except maybe in their fortress-monasteries. A Chapter of Minutemen, all

Thrawn, you wouldnt be far off on that 2kilometers estimate, the longest recorded kill is by an Canadian sniper in iraq/afghanistan using an Barrett .50 Cal AMR.

[Darth Wong]

Weren't we talking about the E-Web? Or did I get two different tangents confused?

Rifles, I believe. Regardless a beaten zone is only possible with a ballistic weapon, because it typically involves firing over hills and such into dead ground.

What happens is that between two points a round will hit a standing individual in the head and at the last it will impact the foot. Anyone in between the two points will be hit somewhere between the head and foot.

Wouldn't we need a serious change in tactical thinking and terminology if we switched from ballistic weapons to weapons with no gravity drop? It would be pretty damned inconvenient in some ways (although we know the Empire still has mortars). On the one hand, it makes aimed fire easier, not having to worry about adjusting to compensate for distance. On the other hand, you can't do something like arcing machine gun fire over friendlies to hit distant enemies.

[Aaron]

Wouldn't we need a serious change in tactical thinking and terminology if we switched from ballistic weapons to weapons with no gravity drop? It would be pretty damned inconvenient in some ways (although we know the Empire still has mortars). On the one hand, it makes aimed fire easier, not having to worry about adjusting to compensate for distance. On the other hand, you can't do something like arcing machine gun fire over friendlies to hit distant enemies.

IMO? Yes and no, I would expect MG's to remain in service with similar terminology to what we have now. On the ground, I don't expect tactics and terms in general to alter that much. There are only so many ways to assault a position or defend something and we're pretty damn good at that right now.

Unless we develop magic tech (I'll place SW in there) then the guy on the ground is still going to be limited to what we're at now; 300m or so effective range and 400m or so as a group. I suspect we would need to start issuing some rather advanced optics and something akin to the Mass Effect weapons (that apparently have an Abramsesque FCS in them) to over come the limits of the human body.

[adam_grif]

Ideally it would get to the point where the soldier wouldn't even be aiming, just analyzing and deciding which targets to neutralize. Even better would be not having a soldier in the field at all, just sitting in a bunker doing the same for a robotic avatar of some kind. More durable, higher endurance, better load bearing potential etc.

There are a lot of potentially useful advances to be made in warfare, but compared to some of them, weapons that don't follow ballistic trajectories isn't really one of the biggest. It's not like it wouldn't have a place, but I doubt it'd be a major paradigm shift.

[takemeout_totheblack]

Thrawn, you wouldnt be far off on that 2kilometers estimate, the longest recorded kill is by an Canadian sniper in iraq/afghanistan using an Barrett .50 Cal AMR.

I know, the Canadian sniper who made that shot is named Rob Furlong, and it was something like 2.4 clicks. But imagine the range a guy like that would be able to get with a weapon that doesn't have a falling arc to compensate for! He could possibly use the 10km range on the DC-15A to its fullest.

That said, what kind of light artillery could be used in the 'assault on the prefab base' scenario? The Empire has mortars, but what are their capabilities? Range? Armor penetration? Splash damage?

[Aaron]

Air and sea is likely where we would see energy weapons having the greatest impact (or ground based AA), without the ability to use terrain to hide and limit ranges it would be a "if you can see it, you can kill it." Making stealth technologies mandatory for aircraft.

[Aaron]

I know, the Canadian sniper who made that shot is named Rob Furlong, and it was something like 2.4 clicks. But imagine the range a guy like that would be able to get with a weapon that doesn't have a falling arc to compensate for! He could possibly use the 10km range on the DC-15A to its fullest.

I'm curious how the Clone is even going to see the target at 10kms away, is he standing on a mountain looking down like Furlong was? Theres some pretty big practical issues with that range number.

That said, what kind of light artillery could be used in the 'assault on the prefab base' scenario? The Empire has mortars, but what are their capabilities? Range? Armor penetration? Splash damage?

Is the Empire assaulting or defending?

[takemeout_totheblack]

I know, the Canadian sniper who made that shot is named Rob Furlong, and it was something like 2.4 clicks. But imagine the range a guy like that would be able to get with a weapon that doesn't have a falling arc to compensate for! He could possibly use the 10km range on the DC-15A to its fullest.

I'm curious how the Clone is even going to see the target at 10kms away, is he standing on a mountain looking down like Furlong was? There's some pretty big practical issues with that range number.

The 10k mark is just a max figure, the idea being that if the Stormie or clone trooper can see it, odds are they'd be able to hit it if they're well trained enough (which they should be!). Many of the draw-backs with modern IRL snipers aren't an issue here due to the non-ballistic nature of blaster fire i.e. no need to correct for wind drift, bullet drop, variations in air density, etc.

That said, what kind of light artillery could be used in the 'assault on the prefab base' scenario? The Empire has mortars, but what are their capabilities? Range? Armor penetration? Splash damage?

Is the Empire assaulting or defending?

The scenario I'm thinking of is a well armed company of Space Marines siege a prefab base for... some reason. So there's a few high points for Stormtrooper snipers in the base, relatively tall walls for regular infantry armed with high-powered rifles, numerous E-webb placements, and defensive mortars for hitting enemies who are either behind cover or otherwise out of the E-webb/blaster's line-of-sight (since there's no arc fire with blasters, right?).

[Darth Wong]

There's the physical problem of adjusting the gun precisely and steadily enough to accurately target something at such extreme range, although I suppose that can be mitigated by stabilizing the front of the gun and then holding it as far back as possible. Of course, it's also possible that it's actually meant for hitting much larger vehicles at that kind of range, rather than the soldier being seriously expected to bullseye a human being.

[Aaron]

The 10k mark is just a max figure, the idea being that if the Stormie or clone trooper can see it, odds are they'd be able to hit it if they're well trained enough (which they should be!). Many of the draw-backs with modern IRL snipers aren't an issue here due to the non-ballistic nature of blaster fire i.e. no need to correct for wind drift, bullet drop, variations in air density, etc.

Assuming as well that blaster bolts travel at lightspeed?

The scenario I'm thinking of is a well armed company of Space Marines siege a prefab base for... some reason. So there's a few high points for Stormtrooper snipers in the base, relatively tall walls for regular infantry armed with high-powered rifles, numerous E-webb placements, and defensive mortars for hitting enemies who are either behind cover or otherwise out of the E-webb/blaster's line-of-sight (since there's no arc fire with blasters, right?).

Unless there is some EU tidbit saying they can then a blaster would be non-ballistic, yes.

[Aaron]

There's the physical problem of adjusting the gun precisely and steadily enough to accurately target something at such extreme range, although I suppose that can be mitigated by stabilizing the front of the gun and then holding it as far back as possible. Of course, it's also possible that it's actually meant for hitting much larger vehicles at that kind of range, rather than the soldier being seriously expected to bullseye a human being.

Aye, I had thought of that as well, you'd be best to put it on a tripod as far as I'm concerned.

Though I have to ask; is the bolt what actually damages the target? I've seen talk of it being a tracer.

[Aaron]

The scenario I'm thinking of is a well armed company of Space Marines siege a prefab base for... some reason. So there's a few high points for Stormtrooper snipers in the base, relatively tall walls for regular infantry armed with high-powered rifles, numerous E-webb placements, and defensive mortars for hitting enemies who are either behind cover or otherwise out of the E-webb/blaster's line-of-sight (since there's no arc fire with blasters, right?).

Ghetto Edit: It would help somewhat if you defined what Chapter the Marines are from. They don't all specialize in the same thing. The Imperial Fists for example are supposed to be experts at sieges, the White Scars at fast attack, Space Wolves close combat, etc.

[Connor MacLeod]

The thing about the 10 KM range thing from the ICS, is that its not very specific aside from being a "maximum possible range" type estimate. I mean, effective range will vary according to how big a target you have (and whether its a group or a single target - as noted by others such as Mike). The longest range canon examples I can think of would be TESB where you had actual rifles firing over a 5-10+km distance, but that was against AT-STs and AT-ATs really - ie Big targets. The 10 km figure could include potentially large battle droids (gunships or suhc) since the DC-15 is large enough to serve as an AMR (it could probably blast through doors.)

Against something man sized, the range almost certainly will be lower, I mena hell unless the guy with the rifle is in a highly elevated spot, he's not likely to even be able to SEE his target more than a few km away.

The 10 KM range almost certainly assumes a lightspeed-type blaster, Curtis was very big on those. Problem is, I'm not sure all blasters fit into that category. We certainly see ones with more projectile type qualities, but even thsoe have no drop in gravity. It could be (As Mike speculated with Zam Wessel's rifle and its accuracy) that blasters (or at least some) fire some sort of guided or semi-guided projectile - I have wondered if projectile type blasters weren't more like a micro-greande launcher than a slugthrower. An alternate possibility with the 'grenade' option is that blasters aren't neccesarily "point" target weapons even at close quarters, they might be designed for proximity/airbursting type effects since we have seen on more than a few occasions that near misses can injure or kill with blasters. Either semi-guidance or "proximity" kill ability could mitigate some of the longer range examples we see, as well as explaining "variable speed" bolts (velocity would only be important insofar as reaching the target.)

I will also note that the Clonetroopers HAVE been known to use slugthrowers - the Coruscant Nights novel mention shocktrooper/stormtrooper groups carrying them, so they arguably would still employ such weapons as need dictated. Though their "indirect/ballistic" ability might be mitigated by the fact some SW slugthrowers are stated to reach hypersonic speeds (Shatterpoint).

Unless there is some EU tidbit saying they can then a blaster would be non-ballistic, yes.

It could be they have an option for "ballistic" fire. We've seen SPHA-Ts firing glowy bolts that arced in the Clone Wars comic, and I'm pretty sure I could recall other examples if I thought (Blaster bolts don't always move in straight lines in the movies either, although that may be more guidance than ballistic arcing. I'm thinking of the mini braodside cannons in the IH/Venator age of sail confrontation at the Battle of coruscant, and when Obi Wan was fired on during ORder 66 mainly)

Then again, just because its a glowy bolt doesnt mean its an energy bolt or energy weapon. It could just be a fancy slugthrower itself, since proton torpedoes and concussion missiles also glow. That would mean we quite likely HAVE seen slugthrower and projectile weapons (quite possibly of different kinds) used in the movies alongside other kinds (energy weapons.)

Aye, I had thought of that as well, you'd be best to put it on a tripod as far as I'm concerned.

Though I have to ask; is the bolt what actually damages the target? I've seen talk of it being a tracer.

Depends on who you ask and the evidence you go by. In my experience it can go both ways consistently, even in the prequels (there are "damage befor contact" scenes in TPM and ROTS for example.) and there are scenes in the movies that are flat out impossible to reconcile with a lightspeed weapon.

Best explanation I or anyone has come up with is that the glowy bolts just encompass a wide variety of weaponry and they use lots of diffrent kinds. On the more extreme cases it may evne be that some blasters are "multi purposes" in a way akin to some sci fi weapons being a "swiss army knife" or the way modern forces have been trying to develop versions of that OICW multi-weapon thing.

The thing about the tracer argument is, aside from the fact that you get some truly ludicrous bolt velocities (literally a few feet per second in cases where a blaster might be a few feet away from the target), usually tracers in slugthrowers only make up a part of the ammo IIRC, not the whole thing (its like one bullet in every several or something) Which would logically imply (if they were tracers) there were "invisible" shots, right?

[Aaron]

Tracers are usually 1 in 3 IIRC. Depends on the weapon though, rifleman aren't typically issued them (a Section or Platoon commander might have a mag of them for designating targets. I've always ahd somewhat of a problem with the tracer argument, because as you say, you get some ridiculous velocities. And giving a weapon a tracer that moves slower then the actual round defeats the purpose.

[Connor MacLeod]

a tracer also basically gives away your position. That's not something you want as a desirable trait.

Frankly the tracer idea is a bit hard to reconcile, because by and large, the "propogation time" of the bolts over a given distance is roughly consistent - matter of frames usually (no more than half or a third of a second I can recall being the logest time I ever recall measuring, but I can hardly claim to have been comprehensive there!)

[takemeout_totheblack]

I was under the assumption that the visible bolts were a sort of trailing left by the faster invisible energy bolt and that's why certain targets were damaged before the bolt strikes.

[Darth Wong]

a tracer also basically gives away your position. That's not something you want as a desirable trait.

Frankly the tracer idea is a bit hard to reconcile, because by and large, the "propogation time" of the bolts over a given distance is roughly consistent - matter of frames usually (no more than half or a third of a second I can recall being the logest time I ever recall measuring, but I can hardly claim to have been comprehensive there!)

This assumes that the tracer effect is a deliberate addition, and not some kind of unavoidable particle decay process as described in the ICS. If it's unavoidable, then it doesn't matter whether it's a "desirable trait".

In any case, the proposed "tracer effect" does seem to help explain why blaster bolts visibly seem to vary from extreme slow movement to very fast movement, depending on how far away the target is. if the glowing part really is the destructive element, it begs the question of why they wouldn't keep it at max velocity all the time.

[Connor MacLeod]

This assumes that the tracer effect is a deliberate addition, and not some kind of unavoidable particle decay process as described in the ICS. If it's unavoidable, then it doesn't matter whether it's a "desirable trait".

In any case, the proposed "tracer effect" does seem to help explain why blaster bolts visibly seem to vary from extreme slow movement to very fast movement, depending on how far away the target is.

Well yes, thats certainly true, but I think then we're not really talking about a "tracer" at least in the sense Kendall talked about. Its more just a "glowy byproduct"

if the glowing part really is the destructive element, it begs the question of why they wouldn't keep it at max velocity all the time.

Well there's range for one thing. And I can't recall if we ever get any indication that velocity is a significant part of a blaster's ability to inflict damage anyhow. It could rely on other means.

[adam_grif]

Yeah but even at close ranges it's better to have it going as fast as possible so you're not required to lead your targets when they're 25 meters away.

[Eviscerator]

[
Ghetto Edit: It would help somewhat if you defined what Chapter the Marines are from. They don't all specialize in the same thing. The Imperial Fists for example are supposed to be experts at sieges, the White Scars at fast attack, Space Wolves close combat, etc.

And thats only the original legion /chapters, subsequent foundings are so different from the original founding chapter that you get blood-drinking Marines like Mortifactors (Ultramarine descendant), Soul Drinkers (Imperial Fists descended) etc etc. A complete Codex detailing rules and stuff for all 1000 existing Chapters would be a very very unwieldy document